One can't help but notice the many liberal newspapers jumping off the Obama bandwagon. Many are hitching their crumbling credibility to Mitt Romney's wining steed: the Des Moines Register; the Tennessean; the Orlando Sentinel; and the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel to name a few.

But Obama can take comfort that the Big Three remain steadfast in their support: the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune.

The Times claims "Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression" and "prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent." Tell that to the 23 million unemployed that currently make up the 14.7% of Americans who have run through their unemployment benefits and still cannot find work.

The Post, on the other hand, expressed "disappointments of Mr. Obama's time in office. He did not end, as he promised he would, 'our chronic avoidance of tough decisions' on fiscal matters. But Mr. Obama is committed to the only approach that can succeed: a balance of entitlement reform and revenue increases." In other words, as long as the president calls for higher taxes, he has a friend in the Post.

The Tribune eerily praised Romney while endorsing his Democratic rival, "On questions of economics and limited government, the Chicago Tribune has forged principles that put us closer to the challenger in this race, Republican Mitt Romney. We write with those principles clearly in our minds. Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing - overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed." However, the Tribune then says, "His [Romney's] proposals to achieve a balanced budget, and to begin reducing taxpayer's huge debts, rest on questionable math and rosy assumptions."

The Tribune conveniently forgets Obama's rosy 2009 "stimulus" assumption to "create three to four million jobs over the next few years ... That's why this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It's one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century."

Four years and nearly six trillion dollars later, America slides into a double-dip recession - or worse.

In a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod was asked by a Des Moines Register reporter (whose editorial board endorsed Romney) if the Chicago fixer thought newspaper endorsements were worth the paper they are printed on. "I guess we'll find out," said Axelrod, "and we're very comfortable with what the result will be."

Lefties love Obama as much as they hated Bush. Can’t wait until the realization sets in that Jesus Lincoln King Jr. is a one termer, while WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER. got re-elected. Their heads will not be able to get around this fact, and they will end up hating America even more than they did before.

Hopefully, the Democrats will respond to the damage Obama has done to their party by tacking to the Center in order to remain relevant, and the Lefties will spend the next several elections backing 3rd Party Left wing candidates.

I’m lovin’ it! And so is Bubba!

3
posted on 10/29/2012 9:28:05 PM PDT
by The Fop
(Excuse me while I clean the saliva out of my racist dog whistle)

Don’t forget to add the San Francisco Comical to that list of dinosaur leftist birdcage liners touting “the One” for another 4 years. Heck, they did a page and a half in their Editorial section about how great he is and how he deserves our support, I think. I got through about 2 paragraphs before I had this intense desire to hurl.

Luckily, the Giants are in the World Series, or this orgasm over Obama would have started on the front page.

5
posted on 10/29/2012 9:36:15 PM PDT
by ssaftler
(Romney: "Attacking me is not an agenda")

“obama prevented the great depression” and prevented unemployment from going to 12 per cent”.
they can ony get away with making statements you can’t prove (i’m not sure if these come under the heading of proving a negative), because they figure the schools turn out kids who can’t think logically and really believe those statements make any logical sense.

Obama reminds me of the skipper of the Soviet attack sub that was pursuing Sean Conner's Marco Ramius in the Red October. The skipper launches torpedoes, homed to take out October. Connery outwits his pursuer, only moments before the Soviet torpedoes home in on the Soviet that launched them. As the final moments approach, one of the Soviet sub's crew members looks at the skipper and says, "you arrogant asshole, you've targeted us." KA-BOOM!

And who is going to hold him responsible. Romney’s made it clear that once he occupies the White House, Benghazi will never be mentioned again. And since Romney doesn’t have a chance of losing, Obama has nothing to worry about.

And who is going to hold him responsible. Romneys made it clear that once he occupies the White House, Benghazi will never be mentioned again. And since Romney doesnt have a chance of losing, Obama has nothing to worry about.

now wait a minute. is there another level to this? has the romney campaign made it known to obama that he will skate on benghazi so that the obama campaign doesnt do its best to win? too far fetched?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.